There is. Call the Optimize() function on the index. You should never delete index files manually unless if you know what you are doing otherwise you can corrupt / destroy your index.
-- George > -----Original Message----- > From: Nic Wise [mailto:nic.w...@bbc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:36 AM > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > I'm SURE there is a cleaner way, but in the past, we read the > segments file (manually :( ), and any file which wasn't > listed in there was considered to be a redundant file. > > Worked for us. There may be a way to ask a IndexReader which > files it's using, and then extrapolate from there, but we > were using Lucene.net 1.something, which didn't. > > I think that's what luke does. Opens the index, asks Lucene > whats it's using, kills everything else. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nitin Shiralkar [mailto:nit...@coreobjects.com] > Sent: 13 January 2009 11:26 > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > Hi All, > > I have started this thread for Lucene scalability aspect. I > have an index with 80 GB size. However it looks like many of > the segment files are either redundant or unused. Even if I > delete them and just retain CFS, segments and deletable > files, the index seems to be working fine. > However I want to know more cleaner approach to identify such > redundant/unused files through APIs. I am able to see these > unused files in Luke as "Deletable". However I am not sure > how Luke is able to identify unused files. I am using > Lucene.NET 2.0 version. > > Can you please suggest some way? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:01 AM > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > Floyd, you will need to provide more details about the > specific problems you are encountering. > > I made a quick check, and have no difficulty opening and > inspecting an index I created a few minutes ago with > Lucene.NET v2.3.1 using Luke v0.9.1. > > -- Neal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Floyd Wu [mailto:floyd...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 8:18 PM > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene Scalability Options > > Hi all, > It seems new version of Luke is not compitable with > Lucene.net and I've email to the creator of Luke. Below is > feedback from him > > "Yes, there have been many changes, > but Lucene 2.4 can still open indexes built with earlier > versions of Lucene/Java. > This is the second report I've got about the possible > incompatibility with Lucene.Net - I suggest to raise up this > issue on the Lucene mailing list ( > java-...@lucene.apache.org), and provide more details, eg. > Lucene.Net revision, stack trace, a small sample index if you can." > > My original report as below > "The situation is Luke-0.9 can not open the index files which > built by Lucene.Net-2.3.1. > I tried to use older version of Luke and confirm Luke-0.8 and > Luke-0.8.1 can open and read index files fine. > I wonder if there is any change between java Lucene 2.3 and 2.4. > Please help on this." > > Floyd > > > > 2009/1/9 George Aroush <geo...@aroush.net> > > > Hi Nitin, > > > > Any optimization that Luke can do on an index is also > doable by making > API > > calls from Lucene.Net. If not, then there is either a bug in > Lucene.Net or > > in your use of the API. Can you share with us your API > calls as well > as > > the > > Lucene.Net version you are using? > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- George > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nitin Shiralkar [mailto:nit...@coreobjects.com] > > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 6:27 AM > > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > > > Thanks Hugh. Yes, I tried using Luke for index optimization. > > > Surprisingly, it has brought down the index size to ~20 > GB with only > > > one CFS and segment files left behind. I used compound > optimization > > > option. But I use the similar "SetUseCompoundFile" property on > > > "IndexModifier" object in my Lucene.NET code, but it has > no effect > > > on size or files after optimization. Any suggestions?? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hugh Spiller [mailto:hugh.spil...@renishaw.com] > > > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:35 PM > > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > > > Hi Nitin, > > > > > > I've found the easiest way to get rid of redundant files > in an index > > > is to use Luke. As soon as you use it to open the index, > it tidies > > > up all the cruft. > > > > > > It's at http://www.getopt.org/luke/ . > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Hugh Spiller > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nitin Shiralkar [mailto:nit...@coreobjects.com] > > > Sent: 09 January 2009 08:48 > > > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Lucene Scalability Options > > > > > > -- snip -- > > > > > > > > > Any inputs on junk/redundant files in above list? > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------ > > > This email and any attachments are confidential and are > for the use > > > of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you must not > > > use or disclose the contents to any other person. Please > immediately > > > notify the sender and delete the email. Statements and opinions > > > expressed here may not represent those of the company. Email > > > correspondence is monitored by the company. This > information may be > > > subject to Export Control Regulation. You are obliged to > comply with > > > such Regulations > > > > > > The parent company of the Renishaw Group is Renishaw plc, > registered > > > in England no. 1106260. Registered Office: New Mills, > > > Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8JR, United Kingdom. Tel > > > +44 (0) 1453 524524 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may > contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC > unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, > please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or > disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it > and notify the sender immediately. > > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to this > > This e-mail has been sent by one of the following > wholly-owned subsidiaries of the BBC: > > BBC Worldwide Limited, Registration Number: 1420028 England, > Registered Address: BBC Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London, > W12 7TQ BBC World News Limited, Registration Number: 04514407 > England, Registered Address: Woodlands, BBC Media Centre, 201 > Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ BBC World Distribution Limited, > Registration Number: 04514408, Registered Address: Woodlands, > BBC Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ >
